Lake District MP fears mountain rescue teams face 'huge' bill

alanw

alanw

Well-known member
www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk

Proposed legislation could leave mountain rescue teams with £20,000 bill

Volunteer mountain rescue teams could face a '£10,000-£20,000' bill in order to cover community events under proposed plans.
www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk

Volunteer mountain [and cave] rescue teams could face a '£10,000-£20,000' bill in order to cover community events under proposed plans, according to an opposition MP.

Cumbrian MP Tim Farron has warned the costs will make it impossible for crews to attend events such as fell races and agricultural shows.
Under proposed amendments to the Health and Social Care Act, any group providing first aid at an event with a medical professional in the organisation must register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
 
They'll be able to attend events, just not be there ready, so have to wait for call out - or could be usual opposition scare tactics
 
Context:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care: (Baroness Merron): "Perhaps I can give some context. Members will recall the tragic events of 22 May 2017, when the Manchester Arena bombing killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000 others. The subsequent inquiry uncovered serious failings, including inadequacies in the provision of healthcare services at the arena. The inquiry noted that these shortcomings may have been present at other venues across the country, in part because of the absence of appropriate regulation. A central finding of the inquiry was absolutely clear: the Department of Health and Social Care should consider changes to the law to enable the CQC to regulate healthcare delivered at events. The CQC has itself outlined additional concerns about the quality of care provided at events. It has heard serious allegations of unregulated provision resulting in severe patient harm."

 
For years people relied on St John's ambulance for event cover, and they had to call ambulance for anything remotely serious, it remains to be seen whether "professional" (rescue) teams are treated the same way. Manchester arena was an event outside of most peoples' experience
 
The most likely outcome is that the events continue with no medical cover at all, or the events are cancelled.

The people who want to regulate every risk out of existence never seem to think through the unintended consequences, or understand that all resources are limited and need to be focused where they will do most good.
 
As I see it this is primarily an issue with the way the proposed legislation is worded.

I don't think it's a bad thing for companies offering medical cover for events to be regulated by the CQC, the issue is that MR teams can't be "on standy" at events where they're likely to be needed.

The waters are muddied slightly by teams collecting donations at events like these, or even being given donations by events organisers, but these are donations, and ultimately teams are not there to provide a commercial medical cover service, so shouldn't be regulated as if they were.

MREW is responding nationally to this proposed legislation, I don't think the BCRC are, and don't think it'll effect cave teams in the same way (unless a winch meet or similar would fall foul of this?).
 
aricooperdavis said:
As I see it this is primarily an issue with the way the proposed legislation is worded.

I don't think it's a bad thing for companies offering medical cover for events to be regulated by the CQC, the issue is that MR teams can't be "on standy" at events where they're likely to be needed.

The waters are muddied slightly by teams collecting donations at events like these, or even being given donations by events organisers, but these are donations, and ultimately teams are not there to provide a commercial medical cover service, so shouldn't be regulated as if they were.

MREW is responding nationally to this proposed legislation, I don't think the BCRC are, and don't think it'll effect cave teams in the same way (unless a winch meet or similar would fall foul of this?).
Click to expand...
I'm aware of at least one cave rescue team that could potentially be affected. Has provided first aid cover at a fell race run by a village in the area. Good for community relations. They receive an entirely unrelated donation.
 
Reading Teesdale Fell Rescue's shout log, rescue organisations seem to be increasingly called upon these days to deal with 'social' issues such as finding vulnerable people in urban environments. If the HSCA/CQC legislation precludes their traditional attendance at rural events, then in my opinion, they should 'work to rule' and only attend beyond where the tarmac ends, and leave the rest to the blue lights.

You can't have it both ways.
 
Cave and mountain rescue teams should stick to what's printed on the outside of their can. That's caving and mountains in case anyone is in any doubt. The fire brigade and ambulance service and St Johns are perfectly capable of dealing with urban situations including sports and organised events in stadiums. There are no "professional" cave and mountain rescue teams are there, although the glossy magazines some of these outfits produce might give pause for thought that things have gone way beyond goodwill and charity towards others facing difficulty.

It's not a case of working to rule. It's deciding what the work is or properly ought to be.
 
Volunteer teams should be free to decide what they want to do, not what people decide for them they ought to be doing or not doing. They are the ones choosing to volunteer their time, or not. They certainly don't need people telling them that they _shouldn't_ be doing something if they are willing to do so. You also forget that many teams do things other than caves and mountains; there are teams in areas that have neither, for example - should they disband? Plus many teams maintain a swiftwater rescue capability amongst many other skills, which is useful for things like urban flooding.

The above has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread, of course. What some of those volunteer teams choose to do for fundraising is indeed potentially affected by these proposed amendments to the legislation(?).
 
Of course they can do what they want, within the law. But if an entity calling itself a cave or mountain rescue team decides to do something "out of scope" then it isn't purely a cave or mountain rescue team any more. If the something else results in additional "compliance" overheads then I'm sorry but that's the way the world works these days and people should not be shocked when they run into compliance and its costs.
 
aricooperdavis said:
As I see it this is primarily an issue with the way the proposed legislation is worded.

I don't think it's a bad thing for companies offering medical cover for events to be regulated by the CQC, the issue is that MR teams can't be "on standy" at events where they're likely to be needed.

The waters are muddied slightly by teams collecting donations at events like these, or even being given donations by events organisers, but these are donations, and ultimately teams are not there to provide a commercial medical cover service, so shouldn't be regulated as if they were.

MREW is responding nationally to this proposed legislation, I don't think the BCRC are, and don't think it'll effect cave teams in the same way (unless a winch meet or similar would fall foul of this?).
Click to expand...
It will for teams where they do both cave and surface rescue such as UWFRA, CRO and Swaledale for example. (or are you meaning Cave only teams), surely they do fund raising things like this too though?
 
I think you'll find that, legally speaking, fundraising is collecting money, not doing a job that someone else could be paid for
 
Fund raising (such as running a flag-waving information stall and shaking a tin) at public events (like the Royal Welsh Show) is not the same as providing a medical service to sports people and suchlike that get into difficulties. The former does not come within the remit of the CQC since it is relieving generous people of their cash and generating goodwill and understanding. I suppose there must be some compliance that concerns shaking a tin in public, but not the medical kind.
 
Your suggestion would be that teams can attend a fell race to collect donations, but if someone breaks an ankle they can't administer first aid? Or they can, but only if they're unprepared? How does such a policy from the CQC help the public? It seems like a very reasonable thing to campaign against.
 
I thought teams aren't insured if they aren't called out by the police (unless they have a separate policy that covers them, which they probably do nowadays). However, you can provide first aid as an individual who happens to be present
 
Some teams *run* fell races to raise funds (including multiple joint surface/cave teams). Should such teams pay to get in an external contractor for medical support, despite having a lot of well-trained advanced first aiders (and often the odd doctor/paramedic/nurse) on the team?

I mean, the easy solution for events of this nature, should the legislation pass as currently suggested, is simply not to provide any medical cover (beyond basic first aid) and rely on 999, which doesn't really seem like a better solution...

Fundamentally, this proposed legislation may stop some teams from doing some event cover that they have historically done either because they want to support these events, or for pure fundraising, or to raise awareness (or more likely all of the above). I don't think this was the intention, nor I suspect in most cases a 'good' outcome.
 
mikem said:
I thought teams aren't insured if they aren't called out by the police (unless they have a separate policy that covers them, which they probably do nowadays). However, you can provide first aid as an individual who happens to be present
Click to expand...
Teams will have multiple insurance types, and I wouldn't pretend to know all the different types they operate under. I am fairly confident that MREW teams are insured for fundraising.
 
Don't forget that in some areas (the Peak District is one) where the Cave Rescue organisation may be asked by the police to search mine shafts for missing persons or for fire-arms which may have been thrown down a shaft to get rid of them after a crime. There is no other organisation which could carry out this task on behalf of the police; the police accept that they are calling on volunteers and it is understood that in such cases the insurance will be provided though the police.

It certainly would not be cost-effective for the police or the Fire Service to try to train their own teams to cover such a specialised case, which actually doesn't happen very often.

What also happens is farm animals falling down poorly fenced or uncovered mine shafts - again the Cave Rescue teams will be called out and there is considerable goodwill generated locally by their willingness to help in this way. Protecting the shaft tops where access for cavers is wanted is usually a job for regional councils - volunteers again.

So there should not be any bars to volunteer organisations such as cave and mountain rescue teams raising money to fund their voluntary efforts. Anything else might put us on the slippery slope to charging people who have to be rescued.

As long as due regard to these points is taken in framing any legislation there should not be any impact on volunteer cave or mountain rescue organisations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top